The Elections Clause And The Independent State Legislature Theory Confront Sound Logic And Settled Practice (December 12, 2022)

. . .

J          “I had the good fortune to listen to the debate from the perspective of someone who has not been inside an American law school.  As I recall from inside an American high school, Federalist Paper Number 78 courtesy of Alexander Hamilton discusses the role, albeit limited, of the judiciary.   Fourteen years after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789, the Supreme Court in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison advanced a doctrine of robust judicial review.  The federal courts have the solemn task of determining whether acts are constitutional and what must be done if acts are contrary to the Constitution.  Even a hard-core Originalist who looks only at the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and possibly other then contemporary publications does not dispute that robust judicial review is part of the settled analytical framework of the Constitution.  The Elections Clause language vests the decision in the state legislatures.  The Petitioners argue that the analysis stops there.  However, the Elections Clause language does not preclude judicial review by any court.  In addition, the analytical framework of the United States Constitution includes robust judicial review as a matter of settled practice in the Republic.  Nothing in the Elections Clause precludes a state supreme court from following the same analytical framework allowing for robust judicial review of the state’s legislative action.  The Petitioners sought . . . judicial review by the United States Supreme Court of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s . . . judicial review of actions taken by the North Carolina legislature.  Petitioners did not challenge the actual decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, only the decision to decide.  Dismiss the petition as contrary to the text, logic, structure and history of the Clause and the Constitution, I say.”

K          “I had the good fortune to attend the show in person and from the perspective of someone who kept everything in perspective while in an American law school.  That is also my take.  The specific provision is neither incomplete nor unartfully drafted.  It says what it says on the topic but need not and does not need to say anything more.  John Marshall’s statue dominates the inside of the Court.  Any true conservative would affirm his great contribution to the development of the American court system.  The acts by state legislatures pursuant to the Clause are subject to state judicial review.”      

. . .

K          “Nice to be agreeing on something again.”

J          “I am pleased you see it my way.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary involving the goal of the Beautiful Game discussed at Expanding The Goal In Soccer (July 18, 2022).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Beau jeu

The Twitter Files Are The Pentagon Papers Of Today

Moore v. Harper:  Say what?

Free Assange

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: